About Me

Name: David Smith
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Religion, Sex, Politics...and Hollywood??

Do you remember the 1997 Harrison Ford flick, "Air Force One"?  It's playing right now.  I kind of had to change gears to start this entry.  As you might have noticed, I haven't been very active in the blogosphere lately.  I'm taking the opportunity to expend my writing efforts on some other projects offline.  I put one of them aside to catch the opening of the movie and then to make this entry.
 
I was stunned by the radical change that Hollywood has taken from 1997 to today.  I guess 9/11 and a war will do that.
 
Now, granted, 1997 was the Dark Ages of the Internet.  No youTube, no blogspot...heck, even Google was still private.  But the differences in scripts of today and the first five minutes of "Air Force One" are unmistakable.
 
Harrison Ford's character, the President of the United States, follows up a joint U.S.-Russia special forces raid on a state sponsor of global terror with a major policy change speech in Moscow.  Now, this would be an insignificant movie except that the text of the President's speech makes the current President's speeches look like a newborn puppy dog's.
 
Axis of Allies?  Milk toast.
 
"With us or Against us?"  It almost quotes Ford's President verbatim.  It makes you wonder who writes the President's speeches and Hollywood's scripts!
 
"We will no longer be on the defensive" and "we will do what is morally right"?  Says who?
 
If it is 1997, says Hollywood.  A Democrat in the White House has everyone saying, "Act, buddy--our guys are getting killed while you play grab-*** with the interns!"
 
If it is 2008, says the President, and Hollywood makes every single movie into a political statement of anti-war content.
 
Amazing.
 
I don't usually write anything less than novel length, but that's all there is to say about that.  Way to go Clooney, Pitt, Jolie and Company! 
 
Way to go!!
 
Maybe I should add Hollywood to that list in the subject line?

Edit:  I went back and looked up the speech in question.  Pretty noticeably absent from recent Hollywood offerings, hmm???
 
President James Marshall:  "The dead remember our indifference. The dead remember our silence.  The truth is, we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened, did we act.  Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons. And to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

YouTube, Dr. Ron Paul and Yours Truly!

If any of you from youtube make it over here, welcome!  If anybody here sees this, check out this video:
 
 
Those of you who are Disciples of Paul will find that he and I sound eerily similar because we both hold to the Doctrine of States' Rights as listed in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
 
Here are a few explanations of Dr. Paul's comments on the issue of abortion.
 
First, Dr. Paul mentions that he wants States to control the issue of abortion.  This is, in fact, the constitutionally correct stance on many issues currently regulated by the Federal Government, including abortion.  The 10th Amendment is still in effect, thus matters not included in the Constitution are explicitly left to the States.  And if you're educated enough to debate the matter of explicitly vs implicitly with me then please, by all means, reply below.
 
Abortion is not in the Constitution, therefore it is supposed to be left to the States.  Dr. Paul mentions that if he harms your baby, he can be sued.  This is under State Law, as it should be.  Technically speaking, the Federal Government is wrong for passing a law pertaining to Partial Birth Abortion.  This, too, should be left to the States completely, just like the broader issue of abortion itself.  State Law pertaining to medical practice comes into play under Dr. Paul's statement.  As do criminal law and a whole slew of other State Laws, but the key is that we are now talking about State Law.  Each State decides for itself.
 
Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973), abortion was a matter of State Law as well, and rightly so.  Now, Dr. Paul mentioned that prior to Roe he saw abortions in rare cases being performed.  Roe was a Dallas Federal case, so being a doctor of OB/GYN at the time in Texas, Dr. Paul would have had experience relating to this issue that no other Presidential candidate--on either side of the aisle!--can relate to!  When the man says that he wants the States in control of this issue, he is absolutely correct.
 
I hate to come across as a die-hard supporter of Ron Paul's, because I am not.  I did notice, however, as early as the first Republican debate earlier this year, that his positions are strikingly similar to my own.  Please believe me when I state that I developed my positions independently of my knowledge of Dr. Paul.  I am working on a book on the topic of States' Rights and abortion plays a very big part of this text.  And when the book is published, it will line out my personal journey through researching related matters and show that indeed I arrived at my positions separately of any influence from any politician or legal mind today.
 
In support of Dr. Paul, I must add that regardless of whether I vote for him or another candidate in the March Texas Republican Party Primary, I recognize that Dr. Paul's vision is quite possibly the one that most closely mirrors both my view and that of the Constitution.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

10th Amendment Center Guest Contributor...I'm Famous!!

Well, not really famous!  Hardly anybody is even aware of the existence of the 10th Amendment, much less it's meaning, much less that it is being ignored entirely!  That's where I come in...and now I join the 10th Amendment Center, at least for one glorious entry, to further the commentary on this necessary topic!
 
Enjoy...you've read it here already:
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My One and Only Global Warming Blog Ever...For Now!!

OK, as the sad, sad line goes, is there anybody out there who will deny that Global Warming is occurring as we speak...er, blog?  Not I, says the toad!
 
So I read today that 140 nations are once again stating the obvious...that it's getting hotter in the kitchen.  And I say, this is new???
 
Here's what I mean.  We see all those great photos snapped by President Theodore Roosevelt as he strode through Yosemite and Yellowstone and Glacier National Park.  And then some smart guy goes and snaps a picture of the parks at present showing the decrease in glacier coverage in the last century or so.  Wow!  Right??  I mean, there used to be glaciers, now there are deer running through grassy meadows.
 
Here's what I simply don't hear anybody saying...not the pundits, not the supposedly Liberal media, not Conservative talk radio--nobody!
 
Global Warming has been going on a lot longer than the Valencia, Spain conference seems to realize.  Remember the Second Ice Age?  Ended around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago?  You know, the glaciers started melting??  Imagine what Europe and North America looked like back then?  Something akin to Antartica today!
 
We keep hearing about Chicken Little running in the room right after Al Gore spreading news of global gloom and doom, yet we keep not hearing about the true cause of this impending global pandemic.
 
What is the great solar glob in the sky up to these days???  Hmm???
 
Or, more appropriately stated, what has the great light in the sky been up to for the last hundred centuries??
 
How much more solar radiation is being churned out now than was 2,000 years ago?  I heard a scientific study recently on similar topics...didn't stick in my memory...probably due to all of the smokestacks appearing on the nightly news.  More politically acceptable to blast American Corporations and President George Bush that practice true science and ask what is going on with the sun I guess.
 
Here's my problem with Global Warming, as portrayed in today's media...Global Warming happens every single day!  And Global Cooling happens every single night!
 
Yeah, yeah...I know...that doesn't count.  Over the course of the last 100 years it has changed dramatically from an average annual global temperature of 70 degrees to 71.2 degrees, or whatever the numbers.  I mean, 1% in 100 years and we're supposed to all start buying land in Colorado so we can be assured of having enough elevation to survive the impending flooding of the State of Florida, or whatever.
 
Do you get my point, though?  Sun comes out, temps rise.  Sun goes down, so do temps.  Clouds?  Lower temps.  Sunny?  Higher temps!
 
Amazing how that works, right?
 
Now apply on a global basis.  If the sun is burning brighter, hotter, emitting a higher band of radiation, etc, temps go up on Earth.  Can we affect this scenario at all?  Well, if you believe in Jean Luc Piccard and 'Star Trek' then sure!  But back on planet Earth...
 
Take another example...gas stove.  Want to boil water to make spaghetti?  Turn up the gas.  Want to boil it a bit faster?  Turn up the heat more--more gas=hotter, faster!
 
Apply this globally.  If the gas on the stove gets turned up, the pot boils faster.  If the solar radiation levels have increased even 1/10 of 1% in the last century, I put forward that this affects the Earth's atmospheric temperatures more than my consumption of gasoline and usage of GE Soft White lightbulbs.
 
Understand that?
 
Now, before anybody hurls the tired, old, "Ignorant Christian with no knowledge of science" card at me, take a look who is paying attention to science and who is employing invective to make their arguments.
 
I admit that Global Warming occurs...that's what one must admit if we acknowledge that once there was a global ice age and today we understand that there is no such condition.
 
Once there were glaciers...today there are not!
 
Gee, I should make a movie.  I figure if Michael Moore and Al Gore can, surely I could, too?  Na'ah!
 
So blather all you want about how we have gone from "Global Chill" 30 years ago in the last Energy Crunch to "Global Warming" today and blame it on Exxon-Mobil all you want.  I seriously doubt that even the Exxon-GE-Halliburton "vast right-wing conspiracy" can do anything to stop the rise of global temperatures.  The sun, after all, is just a little bit larger than the Earth and we already see that the sun causes the rise and fall of temperatures every day.  Over time, if the sun has decided to pelt us with 1% more radiation than in the past, well, drop your SPF 15 in favor of the 60 variety.  And drop beach activities for snow skiing where everything is covered by three layers!
 
Surf's up, Florida!  And it actually is Mother Nature to blame.  Go figure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christians, Politicians, and the Endorsement Game

There has been a lot of discussion lately surrounding the endorsements of Conservative Christian Commentators of Republican Candidates for President.  I'd like to toss out my two cents and see if anybody out there hears this tree falling in the forest.
 
First, Dr. James Dobson chose to not endorse any of the major--or minor, for that matter!--candidates for President.  His comment, specifically, was that his organization, Focus on the Family, would support a 3rd Party Candidate for President assuming that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican Party nomination and the Democratic Party does not turn on its head before the election and adopt a pro-Life or, God forbid, States' Rights-centered platform.
 
Now, before I continue, allow me to review a bit of history.  Remember 1992?  H. Ross Perot?  I had a professor in grad school who swore that the "H" stands for Hoss.  Not kidding.  Perot ran opposite President George H.W. Bush on the Conservative side of the spectrum.  The "other" side won.  Same in 1996.
 
Tables turned in 2000 when liberal, actually Green, Ralph Nader ran opposite Vice President Al Gore, and again in 2004 against Senator John Kerry.  Both lost to George W. Bush.
 
And, no--I have no evidence that shows that the "H" in George H. W. Bush stands for Hoss.
 
Lesson to be learned:  When a 3rd Party candidate runs, the "other" side wins.
 
Conservative Perot?  Democrat Bill Clinton wins twice.
 
Liberal Nader?  Republican George W. Bush wins twice.
 
Pretty easy to understand, right?  Here's where it gets a little bit harder.
 
Dr. Dobson claims to be concerned for the Pro-Life issue.  An honorable cause.  But by supporting a 3rd Party candidate who is Pro-Life, and who cares what else, Dobson will effectively be handing the White House to the Democratic Party nominee, most likely Sen. Hillary Clinton.
 
Now, compare the following two Presidential candidates:
 
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an admitted proponent of a woman's right to choose abortion but who pledges that he will appoint Strict Constructionists to the Federal Courts including the "supreme Court."  Or...
 
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who will have no qualms about sending the most liberal appointments possible to Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and the Senate Judiciary Committee to fawn all over and approve to the "supreme Court."  One more generation of Roe secured.
 
So, if you're a Christian commentator, supposedly all worked-up over the issue of abortion and in favor of overturning Roe and ending the practice, which of these two candidates would you like to see as the 44th President of the United States?  You know, this is really a much simpler issue than at first it might seem.
 
Now, I attend Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.  DBC is what you would call a Conservative, Evangelical, Non-denominational Bible Church.  In other words, we're a bunch of neo-con's just walking around, thumping our Bibles and freaking out about Jesus.  Typical conversations to hear at lunch on Sunday after church include, "Old Testament Prophecy, Revelation, and Contemporary Events;" "Homosexuality and Scripture;" and always, John Piper's latest book and our Pastoral staff's thoughts on the same.  Now, I make light of my Church congregation, but they really are a great bunch of people.  But I'm afraid that I start getting just a little bit skeptical about one person getting as much constant press as Mr. Piper does in my congregation.  I was reminded of why that is today upon reading the following comments by Piper, seemingly mirroring the views of Dr. Dobson.
 
 
First, it must be noted that these comments are dated January 1, 1995.  But I think that it is safe to state, especially considering the propensity of Christians to quote texts hundreds of years old by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine, and others, that if comments by one individual cannot stand the test of time within his own lifetime, that they can possibly be dismissed entirely.
 
Mr. Piper makes the statement that one issue can in fact end someone's political career, or certainly disqualify from public service.  He illustrates this fact by considering the idiocy of a candidate who would endorse corporate fraud (under, say, $50 million); or one who would state that rape is "only a misdemeanor"; or endorsing bribery in government; or making the statement that black people were unfit for public office.  His point is that there are issues that can disqualify a candidate from public office, and I think his points are accurate in the over-the-top nature that he chose to illustrate them.
 
He goes on to, in a light-hearted tone, compare marriage and his search for a spouse, listing similar issues that would have been no-go's in his search for a wife.  Silly, light-hearted, but right on thee money.
 
He ends by drawing his point, which is that abortion in his mind is absolutely wrong and anybody who is a proponent of abortion is unfit for public office.  Now, I will state that I am personally against abortion in every situation, my attitude being that if it is the will of God that that particular egg and sperm come together and become a living being with a unique DNA structure, then who am I to say that it should not die because of rape or incest?  So Mr. Piper and I are probably not terribly far off in our theological beliefs, or for that matter, in our application of our worldviews to what should happen in terms of the people we elect to serve as our representatives in political office.  However, my personal sentiments are not what are at question.
 
When it comes to the issue of abortion, I never argue my personal or moral beliefs in the matter because those are completely out of place in a political dialogue in Washington, D.C.  The matter in Washington politics is that Washington lacks the constitutional authority to even hear the matter much less decide the matter.  I have discussed this at length elsewhere so I will not here.  The issue at stake in Washington in this issue is that this issue belongs in the States, not in Washington.  Period, end of discussion.
 
Now, if and/or when the issue of abortion is removed from the Federal realm and remanded to the States for them to control, then I will make my moral, theological, and logical arguments against abortion on-demand.  But even at that point, all that I am seeking is a return to the system in place prior to January 1973 and the "supreme Court's" opinion in Roe.
 
What Mr. Piper states in his article is a bunch of religious jargon that completely turns off half of the population is lost on half of the other half.  This is why I no longer make the arguments that he and Dr. Dobson supposedly concern themselves with and then shake their heads the day after elections, saying, "Lord, what do we have to do to end abortion?"
 
Pay attention to me, that's what!!
 
I took the opportunity to sit down with the President of a major adoption and foster care non-profit recently to discuss other matters, but I took the opportunity to ask this gentleman about Dr. Dobson's positions.  Sadly, his belief is that Dr. Dobson has become more concerned with his organization, Focus on the Family, than the underlying issue of abortion.  His statement was, "Every time that Dobson begins talking about such things he raises another $2 million for his organization."
 
Now, that is really sad to me.  That tells me that Dobson is willing to sell out his fellow Christians, and hand over the White House to Sen. Clinton and shoot the underlying issue of abortion and the pro-life movement in the foot.  I find that offensive and pathetic.
 
Another personal note regarding Dr. Dobson.  I have been familiar with Dr. Dobson personally for well over 20 years--not bad for someone only 34!  For, you see, when my father found it to be time to sit down with his son (me) and have "the talk," he used a book by Dr. James Dobson.  So I effectively learned "the birds and the bees" from Dr. Dobson through my father.  So I take this matter somewhat more personally and offensively than the next person might.
 
What Christians need to do is shut off the television, quit watching 'Seinfeld' re-run's, pick up their old college government texts, or get on wikipedia.org, and learn just a little bit about their Constitution and their nation.  This is what I have done the last 7 years, and the result has been phenomenal.  I no longer arguee abortion on a personal level but now quote opinions of the "supreme Court," State Laws, very heady political theory and Constitutional Law.  I discuss why the Federal Judiciary has no right or Power to even hear the issue of abortion and compare the underlying principles to those involved in the issue of slavery.  And I scold my fellow Christians regularly about the principles entailed in the 10th Amendment and States' Rights.  My new favorite topic to elucidate the uninformed on is the Power of Congress in Article 3, Sections 1 and 2 to literally strip just about any issue from the Federal Judiciary and return it to the States in a little-known and rarely used practice known simply as "jurisdiction stripping."  Look it up!
 
What bums me, though, are two things:
 
1.) My fellow Christians who just assume that everybody involved in these issues already knows everything that I am saying; and
 
2.) They don't take the opportunity to inform themselves on these "theories" that I espouse.  "Theories."  That's the exact term one of my Brothers used just today to more or less blow off my comments in favor of a commentator and pastor who chose to discuss the issuee of abortion in a recent blog from a moral, not Constitutional, perspective.  Hmph.
 
I have next to no use for the thoughts of these supposedly well-informed men who don't seem to have a collective clue about how to "overturn" abortion.  Really great, guys!  Work for 20+ years to get conservative, strict constructionists appointed to the bench who will adhere to the principles the Constitution was founded upon, then don't discuss them, and throw away the White House just when you could really start making progress on your "strategy."
 
Not to mention completely ignoring the fact that through jurisdiction stripping, it doesn't matter who controls the White House, it matters who controls the Congress!!  So go ahead and elect the first woman President of the United States.  It seems very appropriate, in my estimation, that the person occupying the White House when Roe falls should, in fact, be a woman.
 
But this won't happen employing Dobson's or Piper's strategies, no matter how many of their books members of my congregation have bought!  Heck, I even own a few of these myself!
 
Abortion will be overturned by getting the Judiciary in line with the Constitution, and that happens employing my strategy.  The best way to get somebody's attention and get them to not do what you don't want them to do again is with a two-by-four to the bridge of the nose.  Hard to ignore, impossible to forget.  And if the Republican Party is serious about both getting the Judiciary out of the abortion business and back in line with its Constitutional Powers, then the way to accomplish both is to savagely strip the Judiciary of all authority in this and several other matters and permanently ban them from even taking up these issues again.
 
Oh, and unlike Dobson's and Piper's strategy, mine can be successful with Hillary Clinton in the White House, ducking the activists in her own Party calling for her head for being the President when such an event occurs on her watch.  Dobson and Piper would have to constrain themselves to praying, "Why, oh why, God?" the morning after the election.
 
You decide who has a better strategy and a more accurate understanding of the Constitution.
 
Oh, and don't forget to send your contributions in to Focus on the Family.  Dobson has a private plane to pay for, I'm sure.  (Unfair political stab alluding to the current plight of a couple televangelists dealing with similar questions regarding personal use of company assets.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republicans, Cheney Impeachment, and Strategic Thinking

OK, granted, it's not new now, but I promise that I came up with it originally yesterday during the vote in the House to table Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Resolution to Impeach VP Cheney.
 
As we all know, Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich entered a Resolution to Impeach the Vice President.  Mostly, this is a cheap stunt by a Presidential candidate who is desperate for some press, and he isn't even getting much of that for his stunt!  Amazing in itself.
 
The final vote was 218-194 in favor of tabling the matter.  The Republicans apparently began thinking the same thing at the same time I did:  This matter should not be tabled, it should be exploited!
 
Democrats have been talking about, "Bush lied, they died," and related topics incessantly for years now.  OK, I'm not going to make the argument that information used to sell the war to Congress was completely accurate, but just imagine how fun it would be to force the Democrats to sell the idea in a full discussion!  On the record!  When other, more important business is being set aside for the circuss that would be impeachment hearings.
 
Had the 80-some Republicans who voted to table had voted not to table, the matter would be forced into the discussion/impeachment process.  I would love to see Speaker Nancy Pelosi squirm while overseeing those proceedings.  Try to explain how that's going to pass.  Try to explain how the Senate would ever vote to remove.  Try to explain that any number of other matters don't deserve the time this would take up, and that, instead, Impeaching the Vice President warrants the complete, undivided attention of the Democratic Party, Congress, and the media hoopla/circuss that undoubtedly would dominate our lives for the next 3 months when...most Americans really don't give a flip.
 
And that is the point.  Republicans need to take every opportunity to make the Democrats look like the idiots they are behaving like.  Americans want any number of other items to be dealt with.  Impeachment?  Please.  This serves one purpose:  Payback!  Good old-fashioned revenge.  Clinton's 1998 repaid with Cheney's 2007.
 
And Republicans could make the Democrats look like the utter stooges they are, and they passed up the opportunity blind.
 
You see, this is the kind of thinking that led Ronald Reagan to appoint a bunch of Stanford Law School graduates to the "supreme Court."
 
This is the kind of strategy that led Republican Presidents to appoint seven of the Justices on the Roe v. Wade "supreme Court," yet experience a 7-2 decision going the other way.
 
And this is the kind of strategic thinking that led the Republicans in the US House to propose the 1994 Contract with America while conveniently neglecting to get the big brothers in the Senate on board, resulting in only one out of ten items in the "contract" being sent to President Clinton to veto.  Really effective strategy.
 
Republicans are dumbing their way through Congress and they need to wake up.  Just because you are in the minority doesn't mean you can't make the Democrats look stupid occassionally.  And if Rep. Kucinich is dumb enough to bring Articles of Impeachment against Cheny, then let him!!
 
Americans don't want impeachment.  Americans want results.  And Democrats are only looking to make the President look bad.  SCHIP.  SCHIP2.  Overriding the water projects veto.  Attempting to override every veto.  Blaming the Bush Administration for everything from Katrina (the hurricane itself) to 9/11 (kooks trying to convince us that 9/11 was an 'inside' job).
 
Democrats are incapable of delivering in the majority, but their handlers in the MoveOn.org world of liberal activists drive them on, their vitriolic hatred of Bush determining their every move.
 
"You want to impeach Cheney?" Republicans should have said.  "OK, let's not table this...let's discuss this completely!"  I mean, trot out the Congressional record and point out what was said by individual Democrats in voting to approve the war.  "You want to bring up individual items and discuss from testimony, intelligence, etc?"  Fine--do it!!  Put it squarely in the court of Democrats to prove their points once and for all.  Or admit that they truly cannot so we can truly "move on" as a nation.
 
But this is why Speaker Pelosi was nowhere to be found...I almost cannot blame her for being absent!  Why would you want to be in the Speaker's chair when such a matter came up?  Neither would I--if I were a Democrat!
 
Bring this issue to the head of the class--not because I am anti-Cheney, but because Democrats don't have a case at all!  Make them look bad, bad, bad!!
 
All it would have taken would have been 20 additional Republicans in the House and it would have happened.  And Republicans should have been on top of this yesterday and ensured that the most politically embarassing option had been implemented.  Oops.
 
Maybe they can call on a vote to "un-table" it???
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cheney Impeachment?? An Interesting Contrast In The News

So I turned on C-Span, the "look how little our Representatives are accomplishing for us" channel, at lunch today.  Rep. Dennis Kucinich-D, candidate for President, just had read into the Congressional Record a Resolution to Impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney.
 
 
Interesting contrast in news items on the day:
 
 
Seems the Italians have foiled a Europe-wide terror cell involved in recruiting suicide bomb volunteers to head to Iraq  and Afganistan.  Hmm.
 
"Why now?" asks C-Span.  Perhaps because Kucinich has absolutely no hope of accomplishing anything in the Presidential election?  Makes you wonder who is wasting more time, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Yours To Give (Part 4)

For this fourth installment building on Col. David Crockett's speech in Congress so many years ago, we will be looking at the Constitution itself.  But first, a little bit of background.
 
The concept of the Constitution of the United States is not to award unlimited Powers to the Federal Government or to Congress.  See also the ideas expressed in Col. Crockett's speech from my blog, "Not Yours To Give" from a few days ago.  The idea is that the States were free and independent States that were ceding Power, but only what Powers were enumerated within the Constitution.
 
Remember the Declaration of Independence?
 
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
 
First, notice that "united States of America" is not capitalized as we know it today.  Interesting to consider.  You see, the idea of Virginian Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, is that Virginia will be Independent of Great Britain and the other Colonies/States, yet united with these former Colonies, now Independent States themselves.  And as "Free and Independent States," they have Powers listed and enumerated and bolded above.
 
Contrast this idea of Independence of each State with current practice.  Federal Judges tell States what to do.  Federal bureacrats tell States what to do.  Federal elected officials tell States what to do by taking Powers upon themselves in Washington which are not granted to them.
 
Granted.  That is a key word to remember.  Always consider the 10th Amendment when considering the Powers of the States, also known as States' Rights.  Possessive Plural.  As in many States, each possessing Powers, or Rights, and only granting that which the Constitution awards.  All other Powers are "reserved to the States, or to the people."
 
From the 10th Amendment: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are hereby reserved to the States, or to the people."
 
Now, who determines what Powers fall to the people and which are taken up by the several States?  The Federal Government?  The Federal Judiciary?  According to logic, the Constitution holds that the States get to determine that matter.  If a State takes up a matter and issues Laws, it is that State's realm.  If it does not, then it falls, logically, to the people.
 
That brings up the question that we will discuss today:  What Powers are delegated by the Constitution from the States to the United States, also known as the Federal Government?  To answer that question we must access the text of the Constitution itself.
 
From Article 1, which pertains to the Legislative Branch, the first Branch of government, Section 8, which enumerates the Powers of Congress:
 
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform thtroughout the United States;
 
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
 
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
 
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
 
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
 
"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeititng the Securities and current Coin of the United Statets;
 
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
 
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
 
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
 
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committted on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
 
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
 
"To raise and support Armies; but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
 
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
 
"To make Rules for the Government and Regualtion of the land and naval Forces;
 
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militita, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discplie prescribed by Congress;
 
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the (Townhall won't allow the word here--Constitution!--look it up--very funny!) of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
 
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper  for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
 
Now, remember, Mr. Bunce gave Col. Crockett a dressing-down, or "streaking," over $20,000 paid by Congress to Georgetown residents displaced by a major fire.  If this "charity," as Mr. Bunce (pretty accurately!) labeled it, is not allowed by the Constitution, then how much more the billions of dollars being tossed around in campaigns to support such programs as National Socialized Healthcare Insurance and Taxpayer-funded mandatory 401 (k) retirement accounts?
 
You see, none of these are granted to the United States, aka the Federal Government.  Logically, Social Security, or retirement planning, or even more simply stated, investing, is best left to the individual.  Period!  Would the States do any better than the United States has done?
 
Let me invest my 12% as I see fit.  Let me show any individual how they can invest their 12% and retire a millionaire!  Anyone!  I used to work at Wal Mart as a cashier manager--$6/hour stuff.  But I was investing $1,000/year in Wal Mart stock.  Later, in grad school, I saw that their stock appreciated an average of 46% per year after I left employment.  Had I stayed doing that same thing, I would have had $100,000 in Wal Mart stock.
 
Cashier manager at Wal Mart!!
 
Social Security recipients...can you claim the same???
 
Average workers...can you honestly tell me that you could not do the same???
 
This is only one simple example of how private individuals should be in control of their private investing, not the government.  Even hourly employees can do better.  And salaried professionals???  Please.  Let them invest.  Tax them normally.  And watch tax revenues explode.  And watch as the size of government retracts like a quasar into a black hole.
 
Same with education.  We got it, thanks!
 
Same with insurance.  I'll pay for what I need, thanks!  Don't try to fit me into a general policy that a family of 5 or a retired couple will also fit into.
 
And income redistribution?  I didn't see that mentioned as a Power of Congress!!  Socialism.  That's what that is called.  I see the unalienable right to the "pursuit of Happiness," but I don't see the Power of Congress where they are "delegated" the ability to take assets or income and redistribute it.
 
Oh, by the way, as I type this, the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi letter about Rush Limbaugh's "fake soldier" comment, at the moment, is at $2,000,200 on eBay.  I boasted earlier today that it would top $2.5 million and it appears that is now a low figure.  Talk about a Power that Congress has taken upon itself.  Remember that part about "Congress shall make no Law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?"  Ha-ha!  Wow.
 
Do you guys see what I am talking about? Congress doesn't have the Power to wipe it's own nose if the Constitution doesn't specifically delegate it!
 
You know, this whole Rush Limbaugh thing is very funny--Mr. Limbaugh couldn't buy this kind of publicity!
 
You can't script this kind of ongoing entertainment!
 
And I couldn't ask for a better illustration of what is wrong with our government in Washington, D.C.  Stay tuned!  I predicted $2.5 million, but it now looks like that will be surpassed while I sleep!
 
The Federal Government, does in fact have these Powers.  You see, while the Constitution didn't delegate it in it's language, you and I, in our passive acquiescence, did.  And it is time to take it back.
 
Congress, it is Not Yours To Give!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Note On Illegal Aliens

OK, bear with me here, because the story that I will be referencing may not have anything to do with illegal aliens, but my point most assuredly does.  I know these things take on a "what-color-is-my-skin" attitude amongst a bunch of people on both sides based simply on my point, which is:
 
Every elected official, appointed official, and public servant must raise their right hand upon entering service in their position of public service and state something to the effect of, "I, <name>, swear to the best of my abilities to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the State of <wherever they serve>."  Important fact:  It does not matter if you are the President of the United States or a local Police Officer, you take an oath something to the effect of the above.
 
I have a real problem with people who refuse to carry out this oath after they have said it.  Typically, lately, we have seen this from locally-elected politicians who want to dodge the bullet of the contemporary hot-button topic surrounding illegal aliens and illegal immigration, etc, et al.  I will be in the near future addressing this topic with one specific City Council person in my region and will be publicizing it here as well--stay tuned.
 
Here is why I bring this issue up now.  Dallas Police Lieutenant Carlton Marshall and the Dallas SWAT team were assisting the Federal Government by serving a Federal arrest warrant Wednesday morning when Lt. Marshall was shot in the neck.  Doctors on the scene performed an emergency trachyotomy to allow Lt. Marshall to breath and he came through surgery later in the morning and is now in good condition.
 
Now, all of the people in the residence where the warrant was being served were of Hispanic surnames, but no report has been made that I have seen yet regarding their citizenship or alien status.  In other words, we don't know if these people are illegal aliens or not, and quite frankly, I don't care.  It is not my point to discuss.  If I missed that detail in the article, I apologize.
 
 
Here is my point, however.  Dallas Police Lt. Vernon Hale said that Dallas police have assisted in the execution of federal warrants about 10 times a year and that the department would continue to help out other agencies.

The article goes on to state that in February 2006, four Dallas SWAT team officers were attempting to assist the DEA in serving federal drug warrants early in the morning when someone inside the home began firing. Four officers were shot, but all recovered.
 
In case you missed that, local law enforcement is assisting Federal agencies with enforcing Federal law and, therefore, bringing Federal criminals to Justice.  And that is where I bring this into the realm of Illegal Aliens.
 
Again, this particular case, and the earlier one from 2006, may not involve Illegal Aliens.  That is not my point.  My point is that in the case of local officials claiming no responsibility or no jurisdiction in the case of Federal Law, it is entirely inappropriate an argument to make that this is the case.
 
First, local officials swear allegiance to the Constitution just as State and Federal officials do.  And secondly, there is significant cooperation on the part of all levels of government to enforce the "Constitution and Laws" of every level of government.
 
Now our locally-elected as well as Federal representatives need to begin recognizing these facts--also known as Law--and begin following them.  Or we need to begin replacing them.
 
Perhaps Lt. Hale and Lt. Marshall would be available for promotions and associated payraises to the Congressional level???
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Yours To Give (Part 3)

Just in time for my rant on Socialized Healthcare Insurance!
 
 
Seems it's not such a good idea after all!  This article shows the future of US Healthcare if "Hillary 2.0" is enacted.  You want it?  Great!  Then go sign up for it for yourself.  Don't make the government do it for you.
 
This is the same issue as Mr. Bunce raised with Col. David Crockett a couple of days' blogs ago.  Mr. Bunce was one of the Congressman's constituents, and when his Representative came knocking wanting his vote for re-election, as often politicians do, Mr. Bunce brought up a vote Col. Crockett had cast the previous year awarding the small sum of $20,000 to Georgetown area residents whose homes had burned recently.
 
Mr. Bunce informed the Congressman, rightly, that it is not Congress' area of responsibility nor Power to award charity in such cases.  Take a look at the Congress in contemporary times and compare...strikingly similar, hmm??
 
Same case with Socialized Healthcare, and as I expounded upon yesterday, Social Security.  "An obsequious court to the people" is being paid by those with something to gain.  In modern times, it is the Democratic Party, driven by MoveOn.org, that wishes to secure the "supreme Court" for another generation with Liberal, activist Justices who will define Constitutional rights of the people broadly, while not only limiting States' Rights narrowly, but dismissing them entirely!
 
I attended only my second Republican Party event ever, this time the Denton County Young Republican's monthly meeting, the previous event being a Denton County Republican Executive Committee meeting in about 2002.  Five years' time in between, not bad!  We had the pleasure of hosting a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for a State Court Judgeship in next spring's Republican Primary.
 
The candidate began with a brief introduction of his background and qualifications, followed by an impressively long Q&A session with all present.  Being that we had one local City Councilman present along with at least one attorney, and myself being somewhat cognizant of Judicial issues, a very good session indeed.
 
This fellow also acknowledged that the 9th, 10th, and 11th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are basically being ignored in the contemporary environment.
 
Did you see those repealed???  I mean...hello?  For crying out loud, the 11th Amendment was meant to restrict the Judiciary!  And it is being ignored.
 
Does that bother anybody else??
 
Neither does Congress have the Power under the Constitution to handle...or even discuss the issue of Social Security, nor Socialized Healthcare Insurance, nor a whole litany of other matters that fall under 10th Amendment States' Rights like, say...abortion?  Nor does the Judiciary have the right, Power, or authority to simply "ignore" selective portions of the Bill of Rights.  In this case, 20% of the same.
 
Alexander Hamilton wrote the words quoted earlier, "an obsequious court to the people," in Federalist #1 in support of ratification of the newly Framed Constitution.  It fits rather well today as well.
 
And Mr. Bunce, and no doubt Mr. Crockett, too, are both calling out to us across the span of time and the pages of history to learn from their mistakes.  God only knows we have made enough of the same in our own era!  Perhaps we should review that grand old line about history's mistakes...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Yours To Give (Part 2)

I have developed over the years a profound respect for men who limit the role of government, given our tawdry history as a species at lording over others our power as rulers.  And none are exempt from this disease.
 
Nobody by the name of Napolean may boast of his service to his people because when it is all said and done, they are simply a power-hungry conqueror, long on greed, short on good sense.
 
None by the name of Marx may boast of new theories of governance of the people, for the people, and by the people.  For every time that their "theories" are put in place, innocents die at the hands of those enacting their theories--by the millions!  This is neither self-rule, nor is it of the people.  It is tyrannical despotism just like the monarchies of Old Europe, except much more brutal in its atheism than Christianity ever hoped to be.
 
And none with Roman numerals behind their name (i.e. Louis, George, et al) may boast of their record, for even those who proved to be great rulers were only a generation removed from sons and grandsons--and in some cases, daughters!--who shame the name of those who preceded them.
 
No, we today prove our own inadequacies when we elect men--and now, women, too!--who cannot break the chains of history, that bind them to repeating the mistakes of the past.  And some of those not too distant in the past!  I say we, because it falls to us in the United States to choose wise, noble leaders to represent us, not so much lead us, and we continue to dwell on appearance and "brand name," and not the content of their character as our primary measuring stick.
 
No, we today are no better than those names in our history books, long forgotten, dust ridden.
 
That is why men by the names Madison, Hamilton, Houston, and Crockett so stand out in our modern times, and in the history of our own nation, as men who were different.  If not in what the did, in the case of the former two, then for what they instituted.  And in the case of the latter two, for what they adhered to, formerly instituted, and fought for to be instituted elsewhere.
 
I have shared with you my appreciation for Col. David Crockett in my previous post, both for the words quoted there, as well as his sacrifice in resigning his cushy position in Congress to die by musket and bayonnet for what he believed in Texas.
 
Another hero would be Sam Houston, a man of too many titles to choose one to precede his name with.  Governor and Senator of both Tennessee and Texas is still not big enough to remember him by.  Father of Texas belongs to another.  This was a great man, and one whom my State and our nation was well-served by.
 
The principles these men adhered to were discussed at length in Col. Crockett's own words previously.  They are summarized best on a memorial plaque at Sam Houston's statue on Interstate 45 in Huntsville, Texas:  "Govern Wisely, and as Little as Possible."
 
Our government today governs neither wisely, nor very little, preferring instead to involve themselves in every matter, in every manner possible.  Col. Crockett was given a dressing-down by a constituent over $20,000, not on amount of money, but principle!  Mr. Horatio Bunce, backwoods Tennessee farmer, and I both understand that the Congress takes upon itself far too much, and thinks of itself far too greatly.  And we today see the effect of this out-of-control national government.
 
We see what happens when the government, as Col. Crockett was instructed, hands out charity it is not given the Power to give out.  Social Security makes an awful lot of old people happy who vote with much greater regularity than do we 30-somethings.  But the Power to plan for peoples' retirement is neither a matter given to the Federal Government, nor is the Power to self-award such Power via Statutory Law (i.e. The Social Security Act) given to Washington.
 
The very ideas contained in such Socialist, or "charitable," programs are exactly what Mr. Bunce "streaked" Col. Crockett in regards to.  By the way, the term "streak" as Col. Crockett referred to feeling after his dressing down at the hands of Mr. Bunce was the same as the Apostle Paul referred to in regards to himself when he listed the marks on his own body from lashings he received at the hands of those who opposed his preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They were like nigh unto the very "streak(s)" laid on our Savior's back before His crucifixion.
 
And Col. Crockett's immediate and undelayed, appropriate response was exactly what we should see from our Congress today--humility, regret, remorse, and a promise to mend his/their ways.
 
Col. Crockett went so far as to say, "If I fail to live up to the expectations of the Constitution, then line me up and shoot me!"  Now, this may be taking things just a tad far, but it shows the gravity of the situation he faced, and the model response our contemporary Representatives should echo.
 
And if they do not echo his sentiments, then they should be executed 21st Century-style--"Turn the rascals out!"  A quote from my college Poly Sci professor, meaning--vote them out!
 
As Mr. Houston (what do you call a man due so much respect??) stated, and as quoted in his memorial in Huntsville, Texas, our government has far-exceeded its Powers and the best way for it to respond is to begin "govern(ing) as little as possible."
 
The Constitution of the United States is still the governing document of our nation.  And contained within it's words are many principles still in effect, though forgotten in practice today.
 
10th Amendment States' (and Individual) Rights--meaning that any Power not specifically granted the United States remains reserved to the States.  And in lieu of the States acting on a measure--say, Healthcare Insurance--it is strictly reserved to the people.
 
That means that if I choose to invest 12% of my income in the stock market, I have the freedom to do so, and not have a power-hungry Federal Government take that 12% and give it to some old person in Paduccah, Ypsilanti, or Mamaroneck!  Pardon me if I got the spellings wrong, but there is not one person who, if from the time they started working invested 12% of their salary in a 401 (k)-type savings account would not retire a millionaire several times over.  Instead, we are beholden to the Federal Government for our measly $900 per month, equivalent to 90% of the average retiree's retirement savings!
 
Social Security indeed!!
 
But instead of trusting the People to take care of themselves in their "pursuit of Happiness," the Hillary Clinton's, Barak Obama's and John Edwards' of the world, not to mention the rest of the Democratic Party who prefers Socialism to Free-Market Capitalism, despite all of the empirical evidence of the former's dreadful failures, continue to propose pouring on program after bureacratic program, further dragging down our economy and raising our tax rates.
 
Limited Government.  This is a term that applied to the Framers' Constitution that we have forgotten today.
 
And it is one that has been called upon by heroes of every era since then.
 
And it is one that should we continue to, in ignorance of the purpose of government under our Constitution, ignore, will destroy both our Constitution and the nation that it founded.
 
And we will just go down in the anals of history as one more pathetic Roman numeral.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Yours To Give

I tend to like quotes, especially when they are of someone whom I respect as much as Davy Crockett.  First, the Crockett Tavern located in Morristown, Tennessee is right down the mountain from my own father's childhood home.  Second, I grew up always hearing the song sung in my presence, "Davy, Davy Crockett--King of the Wild Frontier" because my childhood name was Davey.  And lastly because Col. David Crockett, Congressman from Tennessee, resigned his position in the U.S. House to fight and die for Independence in my native Texas.
 
The following mirrors my recent discovery of the meaning of the Powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution.  I quote it here in its entirety because I'm about to rattle off on a tear several blogs of note that Col. Crockett backs with his words herein, echoed across time and the pages of history.
 
Enjoy.
 
Copyright © 2002 The Junto Society - All rights reserved.  Permission to reprint granted provided a link to this site [http://juntosociety.com] is plainly accompanying the article.

Not Yours To Give, Col. David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee, Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
 
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
 
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
 
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
 
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
 
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
 
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---‘
 
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
 
"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
 
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
 
" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
 
" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
 
'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
 
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
 
" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
 
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
 
" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
 
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
 
" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
 
" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
 
" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’
 
" 'My name is Bunce.'
 
" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'
 
" 'Yes.’
 
" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
 
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity,  and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
 
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
 
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
 
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
 
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
 
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
 
" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"
 
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
 
" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
 
" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
 
"He came upon the stand and said:
 
" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
 
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
 
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
 
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
 
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000,  when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Article 3 of the Constitution...Lookey, Lookey!!

Can I share with you what I learned this week?
 
I learned a few things about the Federal Judiciary, jurisdiction, and the games people play pertaining to the issue of abortion.  It is very interesting stuff, indeed!
 
Harvard-ites, tune in--you won't be learning this stuff at Con Law 101, I suspect!
 
First of all, Article 3 as it appears in the originally-ratified Constitution:
 
Section 1.  "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
 
Section 2.  "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
 
Forgive me for excluding Section 3, which deals with Treason and is therefore irrelevent to my purposes.
 
Note that the 11th Amendment, ratified not 5 years after the Constitution, was the first instance of a "supreme Court" opinion being overturned by Constitutional Amendment by Congress and the States.  Kind of a "slap down."  When exactly did we get away from that??  The 11th Amendment:
 
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
 
Big deal, right?  Well, this basically means that you cannot sue another State in Federal Court--go sue them in State Court--in their State!  Also, note that while you may sue an individual from another State in Federal Court, you may not sue your  State in Federal Court.  Again, that is what State Court is for.  This should be cited in every case that ever was heard in the Federal Judiciary that dealt with State Law:  Dred Scott, Plessy, Brown, Roe--you name it!!
 
Do you understand the fundamental principle involved here, folks??  Review:  The Federal Government only has that Power over the States which the States award to the Federal Government!!
 
I'm not seeing what is so hard to understand?!
 
Now, in case you're still scratching your head, consider those cases that I just rattled off.
 
Dred Scott v. San(d)ford (1857)--slavery; matter of State Law.
 
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)--segregation; matter of State Law.
 
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954)--reversed segregation; matter of State Law and "supreme Court" precedent.
 
Roe v. Wade (1973)--abortion; matter of State Law.
 
Note:  None of these cases involves a State.  Not one.  Yet every single one of them involves a matter of State Law!
 
OK, I should probably state this before I proceed.  First, slavery is terrible, and it is terrible that it was ever practiced in this country.  It is terrible that it was recognized, though not regulated by, the Constitution, other than banning Congress from abolishing the International trade of slaves prior to 1808.  It is terrible that the "supreme Court" declared slavery constitutional in Dred Scott.  In my personal opinion, it is terrible that the "supreme Court" clerk could not even spell the defendant's name correctly in that matter.
 
It is terrible that we fought a war over slavery, among other issues.  It is terrible that we endured the period of Reconstruction as a result of this war.  It is terrible that segregation resulted, and that the "supreme Court" ruled this constitutional as well, although this time they spelled the defendant's name correctly!
 
It is terrible that it took the "supreme Court" nearly 50 years to right the wrong represented by Plessy.  It is terrible that the Civil Rights era was so turbulent and that we had such a bitter debate over such a simple issue over 100 years after fighting said war.  And it is terrible that through this whole time period from prior to 1860 to 1964, and even unto today, that we still look on each other, black and white, as terribly as we do.
 
Now, that all being said, what is the most terrible about all of this is the damage that has been done, continuously and repeatedly, to our Constitution.  The "supreme Court" began this process, and today it continues with many other issues, namely abortion, religion, and capital punishment.
 
Here is what we know as it pertains to abortion.  "Jane Roe," also known as Norma Jean McCorvey, claimed to be pregnant at the time the original case, Roe v. Wade, was filed in Dallas Federal Court.  Ms. McCorvey/Roe now admits this was not the case.
 
We know that the prosecution in this case, notably two ladies very left of center on the modern political spectrum, went "cherry-picking" to find their "Jane Roe."  Further, once they found their "Roe," the sued in Dallas Federal Court.  Instead of naming the State of Texas as the defendant, since that is not allowed as showed above, they chose Dallas County District Attorney as their defendant, thus nullifying the issue altogether.  Except that two individuals involved in a suit are supposed to go through State Court.
 
So we have a "made-up" name in "Roe" meant to disguise their "made-up" defendant, who actually had no grounds to file suit in this matter anyways, being that she now admits that she was not pregnant, filing a Federal suit in a matter that should have named the State as defendant in a State case filed in State Court.
 
Am I missing anything here??
 
Oh, then there is the matter of the sister case in Georgia, Doe v. Bolton, following largely the same charade, except that the married plaintiff's alleged a hypothetical scenario under future circumstances.  This is acknowledged fact as stated in the Roe case materials, which is why the "supreme Court" threw the Doe case out entirely.
 
Then there is the continuing legal strategy in Pennsylvania where Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) names State Attorney General, and not the State of Pennsylvania as defendant.
 
Are noticing a pattern here?
 
We are not allowed to sue our State in Federal Court.
We are not allowed to sue other citizens of our State in Federal Court in State matters.
We are required to bring matters of State Law to suit in State Court.
 
Interesting history there.  Quite frankly, the Judiciary should have slapped this suit back down to Texas State Court, recognizing the funny business being engaged in by the plaintiff's counsel.  Come on.  In addition to not being the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary, the 10th Amendment trumps the Federal Government entirely.  Wake up!
 
Now here is where my week gets interesting.  Re-read that part in Article 3, Section 2 about jurisdiction.  This is fun!
 
First, Section 1 grants Congress explicit, exclusive control over the "inferior Courts."  That's what happens when you are allowed to "ordain and establish" something.
 
Think about it...
 
"We the people of the United States of...<blah, blah, blah>...do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court (hence my capitalization!), and in such inferior Courts (I love that term!) as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
 
So in other words, "We the people" get to institute something as grand and extraordinary as the Constitution, and likewise, the Congress gets to set up the Federal Judiciary in the same manner!
 
This is really funny if you stop and think about it!  Who rules over the Judiciary?  The "supreme Court?"  No!  Congress!!  The "all-powerfull" "supreme Court" isn't even given the Power to set up and rule it's own branch of government!!
 
But wait, there's more...
 
Article 3, Section 2 states that Congress may "Except" and "Regulate" the appellate jurisdiction of the "supreme Court!"  Do you know how much that fact has got to tick off the Justices??
 
Well, not much.  Because historically, Congress has failed to reign in the "supreme Court" at critical times when it was warranted.  See that list of cases again.  Congress acted not once to restrict the Judiciary in these matters.  They did not step in and restrict the "inferior Courts" in their violations of States' Rights, they did not regulate the "inferior Courts" jurisdiction, and they did not step up to the plate and "Except" or "Regulate" the "supreme Court" in it's appellate jurisdiction.
 
Now, I know there are many who disagree with me to the death on the issue of abortion.  But I have "supreme Court" Justices willing to go on the record stating that this is a matter that is none of the Federal Judiciary's business (Scalia, Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992) and all you have is the tired old line, "Well, what about in the case of rape or incest."  Please--most States' Laws took these cases into consideration.  Come up with something of more intellectual value.
 
Now, here's where the discussion gets really interesting!
 
Congress can "restrict" the "supreme Courts" appellate jurisdiction, right?  And Congress completely has Power over the "inferior Courts," right?  And the Chief Executive is nowhere to be found in Article 3, right?
 
Now, consider the following scenario.  Sen. Hillary Clinton is elected our next President--a likely possibility!  But the Congress is lost to Republicans in both houses--another likely possibility given their current popularity polls!
 
It is possible that we could see Roe stripped from the Judiciary before Clinton even takes office, given that Congress takes office prior to the President!  Now wouldn't that be one hell of a send-off for President George Bush!!  And wouldn't it be the most beautiful thing in the world for the President and a liberal "supreme Court" to suddenly have no control over the issue of abortion??
 
Picture the Simpson's character when I say, "Ha-ha!"
 
And imagine this:  Justice Scalia has well-stated, "We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining," also in Casey.  How possible is it, do you think, to expect that the Judiciary would never again take up this matter?  Even were Congress to be led by Democrats again, a distinct liklihood, how likely would it be that the Judiciary would ever take up this matter that has so divided the nation??
 
Keep it in the realm of politics and politicians, where, "All participants, even the losers, (have) the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight."
 
Viva la Constitution!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Retirement Accounts...Again??

Did you hear about Sen. Hilary Clinton's newest retirement account proposal?  Proposed giving every baby in the country $5,000 in an account to be invested for their future use in buying a house, getting an education, or starting a business.
 
Well, nevermind, because the Senator threw that baby proposal out with the bathwater.
 
Now we see the Senator calling instead for every American to receive $1,000 per year towards 401 (k) accounts, undoubtedly managed by the Federal Government.  After all, her statement was something to the effect of, "Can we finally put to death the idea of privatizing Social Security?"
 
OK, first of all, 401 (k) accounts are phenomenally good and extremely successful.  Even a person who lost all money invested in Enron in the early 2000's has regained their portfolio value if they were fully diversified.  And to those sad individuals who unwisely bet their retirement on Enron by putting all invested capital into that option, I'll bet they've learned otherwise, too.
 
401 (k) accounts work for precisely this reason:  They are not under the purvey of the Federal Government!!  They are privatized, and other than the pathetic Enron issue, nobody ever complains about this option.  In fact, corporations would be ecstatic to support your 401 (k) investing with (free!!) matching funds were it not for the case that Social Security costs them 12% of your salary on top of your salary.
 
I don't see what all the fuss over privatizing Social Security is.  Shrinks the size of the Federal Government, reduces both the taxes that we pay as well as what employers pay.  Do you think the companies would be willing to pay a little bit more, say 3-5% more in salary and benefits, if they could eliminate their Social Security suspport?
 
I'll take 12% in personal contribution with an employer match any day of the week!  And I'll take it over participating in Social Security twice on Sunday!!
 
But the idea of Sen. Clinton overseeing a program that she claims would only cost $25-30 Billion a year is just ridiculous!  First, there are roughly 300 million people in this country and at Sen. Clinton's $1,000 / year rate, it would easily top $300 Billion using conservative, simple math.
 
Perhaps Hillary has learned President George Bush's "fuzzy math?"  Where does one get $30 Billion confused with $300 Billion??  Bad math skills, folks.  Bad math skills!
 
Then the matter of oversight and administration comes into questiton.  Which Federal Organization will oversee the mattter and orchestrate the vast resources that will be needed in order to successfully implement this plan?
 
Answer:  None that exists today; This group would have to implement some sort of new bureacracy to oversee this mess, and if you think that could be accomplished for under $30 Billion annually, you are smoking--and inhaling!--bad grasss.
 
In implementing this program, we must ask ourselves, how is the economy doing?  From my perspective, it is trucking along at a brisk pace and has been, with rare exception, since the early 90's.  This is due to tax-cutting measures being implemented.  Interesting to note that when the first President Bush stated, "Read my lips..." and then proceeded to raise taxes, the economy took a downturn later than cost him a possible second term.  Bush 2 comes in, lowers tax rates--especially on the "poor"!--and the economy is flying again!  This is not to bash Democrats or former President Bill Clinton--it involves Republicans raising and lowering taxes and the results of such moves!!
 
Since we have these two instances of Republicans raising and lowering taxes and the empirical data suggesting that raising taxes will usually have this effect on the economy, as will lowering taxes, we must ask the following:  What will happen, regardless of responsible Party, if the next Congress and President eliminate the Bush tax measures of 2002?
 
Answer:  The economy will take a downturn!
 
Now, consider Sen. Clinton's proposals pertaining to Healthcare Insurance and this retirement account proposal, both of which will be paid for by taxpayers.  If taxes are raised to pay for these programs, which will be necessary, we will experience a downturn in the economy as previously discussed and empirical evidence supports.  This means less money in the people's pockets.  Easy to understand, right?
 
Now, consider the impact on these programs.  As more and more negative impact is felt on the economy due to higher taxes, more and more people will begin to rely on these programs, in turn raising need for more and more funding.  This increases the need for higher taxes which furthers the negative impacts on the economy which increases the burden on these programs which in turn forces Congress to raise taxes to pay for more and more people on these programs.
 
Cyclical, predictable, and empirical.  Raise taxes and it gets worse--period.  Economics 101, free of charge.
 
Take the opposite approach.  Eliminate government entitlements--for arguments' sake, let's discuss Social Security.
 
Eliminate Social Security, for arguments' sake, and reduce the taxes associated on individuals and employers.  This alone will be a HUGE savings in expense for employers.  Now, let me ask you this--do you think employers would prefer increasing contributions to employee's self-directed retirement plans like 401 (k) if they can eliminate all matching contributions to their employees' Social Security accounts?  HECK YES!!
 
Here it comes--did you see it coming?  The government is not given the authority to engage in retirement planning!!  Not in the Constitution.  And if you quote the "general welfare" crap like one of my (fellow) Christian buddies did last week, I'll punch you in the elbow!  Gross misinterpretation of the term.  It is not up to the government to "Secure" our "Social" position.  The Declaration of Independence guarantees only the inalianable right to the "pursuit of happiness," not it's "Security."
 
If you want Securities, call Merrill-Lynch.  It is their business to help make you rich, and in the process of doing so for millions of people, to make billions of dollars in profit in return, which we then in return tax at a 38% clip.
 
I like that!!
 
Sen. Clinton has yet to realize that 401 (k) is not the business of government, either, apparently.  If she thinks that pouring money into this as a government program will solve anything, then she is sorely mistaken.
 
Actually, truth be told, I think this is Hillary's clever way of admitting that President Bush's privatization proposal is the best thing out there to solve Social Security's woes.
 
She just wants to use 401 (k)'s and make them government programs instead!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Left, The Right, and The Environment--Also Titled Trash And A Christian Womens' Conference

I think that we all know that the political left has renowned itself for being strangely, violently "green," or protective of the environment.  Without going into all of the wacky gimmicks that "Green's" have partaken of to champion the environment, allow me to convey an interesting observation from a Christian Womens' Conference that took place in Denton, Texas at my church this weekend.
 
2,000 women converged on Denton Bible Church this weekend to participate in this conference, including being served a catered lunch from Panera Bread--Mmmm!!  Well-deserved plug there!
 
Well, I volunteered to serve in any capacity necessary for the conference all weekend including the lunch period.  Now, having 2,000 women in any one such facility is an amazing thing to deal with which comes with its own unique set of matters to be dealt with!  For example, when the women outnumber men about 2,000 to 20, men's restrooms go away real quick, converted to ladies rooms for the duration!
 
Another difficulty lay in seating these wonderful ladies for lunch.  The fellowship hall accomodated approximately 700, and many were seated on lobby couches and in other seats throughout the building.  However, a good number of these blessed souls ate sitting on the capeted floor, on the shaded curbs outside, or under several young trees planted when the facility was built in the last couple of years.
 
Needless to say, these ladies were all very patient with the somewhat limited facilities listed, both restrooms and seats.  But what really amazed me was even though several hundred ladies sat outside enjoying the temperate Texas September weather, with paper sack lunches that included napkins, wrappers, and various other plasticware, etc, the total amount of trash collected outside amounted to the following:
 
One paper napkin.
 
That's all!  One measly paper napkin made of presumably 100% post-consumer recycled materials anyway.  I say this because it was that rough brown paper that hurts to blow your nose with--somewhat uncomfortable paper!
 
It is interesting to listen to the Al Gore-types rail on about pollution and its impact on our environment and yet hearing that the former Presidential candidate's home uses something like 20 times the average consumers' energy output.  Hypocritical, too.
 
And it is also interesting to note that the political left vilifies conservatives, and specifically Christians, for anything and everything under the sun.  Osama bin Ladin strikes again?  "See, religion is nothing but trouble."  Everyone driving SUV's?  "Conservatives like their oil black and the sands of the Middle East blood red!"  On and on.
 
Yet, sadly, absolutely no mention will ever be made that 2,000 Christian women gathered on Saturday in Denton, Texas, and the only evidence of it other than the smiles on their faces was one napkin, later picked up, that blew away from a little old granny sitting on her butt on the curb, contentedly discussing with several younger women the topics of the seminar and their application to these ladies' lives.  She would have picked it up except that it blew away so fast.
 
But never mind, we servant-hearted, Christian men were there to take care of this massive amount of human waste byproducts being added to our environment, also affectionately referred to--still!--by a few conservative Christians concerned for God's Creation!
 
Way to go, ladies!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive